Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Québec East (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Privilege November 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the House refer to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs the matter of the refusal by the Board of Internal Economy to pay the legal fees incurred by the hon. member for Québec East as a result of the civil lawsuit launched against him by Senator Hervieux-Payette.

Privilege November 1st, 1999

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Privilege November 1st, 1999

I was speaking therefore about a similar precedent, which was raised by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley in October and involved a federal agency, CSIS, and its direct and indirect activities in proceedings against her.

The Chair took this case under consideration, noting that it appeared at first glance to be a serious question of privilege and of contempt of parliament. The matter I put to you today may be compared with the earlier case, but appears to me more serious still, because it concerns not a former employee of the Senate, but a sitting senator whose actions involve the Senate directly in an attack on the authority and dignity of the House of Commons, or tends to produce such results.

The matter at issue arises from a civil suit brought against my by a senator who took offence at a bulk mailing of 16 pages on the Senate to my fellow citizens in April. The mailing of 48,000 copies, distributed by the House of Commons services, was intended solely to inform the public on the Senate. The document upset the senator to the point that she took action against me for defaming the Senate.

The strangest part of the matter is that the petition gives the impression that this is a simple suit by a senator against a member of parliament, which is not the case. Much more is involved. In fact, the suit involves the Senate directly, putting it in a position of hostility and aggression with respect to the House of Commons.

First, the senator speaks on behalf of the Senate. She defends the institution as if she had been given a very clear mandate to do so. She then makes provocative and disparaging remarks about the House of Commons and the elected members sitting there, something I consider entirely inappropriate and unacceptable.

This case arises from a civil suit brought against me by a senator. Although the appearances may lead you to believe that it is simply a lawsuit concerning an MP and a senator, it is much more. In fact, the lawsuit involves the Senate directly, placing it in a hostile position toward the House of Commons. The senator speaks in the name of the Senate, for the institution as a whole, as though she had a clear mandate to do so. In so doing, she makes a number of provocative and derogatory comments concerning the House of Commons and its elected members, which I consider to be totally inappropriate and unacceptable.

A personal libel suit must be limited to the factors that have a truly personal impact.

In Ms. Hervieux-Payette's suit, the personal is buried in a huge number of allegations that have nothing personally to do with the senator. Ninety per cent of the allegations do not involve her personally, but rather the Senate as a whole and its relations with the House of Commons.

For example, she feels that the comment made in my document to the effect that “the Senate is an archaic and undemocratic institution” is defamatory. She accuses me of making false and erroneous claims concerning the costs of that institution and the particular services enjoyed by senators. She feels that my statement to the effect that the Senate sits few hours and few days per year is defamatory. Finally, she considers that my comments are contemptuous when I state that the Senate is an institution that lacks transparency, or that senators can find themselves in conflict of interest situations since they sit on boards of directors that can sometimes bring them in excess of $400,000 per year.

All these allegations are not of a personal nature. She is speaking on behalf of the Senate. In fact, she is not only speaking on behalf of the Senate in her application, but also in her examination, which took place on August 19 and where she said “I am speaking on behalf of the institution” It could not be any clearer. I will table a copy in French and an English translation of that examination and of the application.

In speaking on behalf of the Senate as she is doing—and this is my first point—is the senator not involving the Senate as an institution in her lawsuit against me? Is the Senate not directly or indirectly involved in a lawsuit against a member of this House? Is the Senate not prosecuting a member of parliament through a senator?

At this time, I can assure you, based on the comments made by the senator during her examination that the Senate has played an active role in the preparation of that legal action. Is this not evidence that the Senate is behind the application made by Mrs. Hervieux-Payette?

What is important here is to recognize that in speaking for the Senate, the senator forces me to violate the spirit of parliament. In order to defend myself, in order to be assured of having a just and equitable trial, I am compelled to contest the immunity of senators and to convene a number of them by subpoena duces tecum. I have no other choice. To prove my innocence, I must fight the Senate, somewhat like David against Goliath. Obviously, it is an unfair and excessive burden, a task requiring resources that far exceed those available to a single, solitary member of parliament. Does that not in itself constitute an attack on my status and role as an elected MP?

As I have said, in order to defend myself, I will be forced to call senators, Senate staff, and even senior House officials by subpeona duces tecum for questioning about the Senate's budget, costs and operations.

I will even be forced to call senators by subpeona duces tecum to testify about their travel, telephone and office expenses, and even about their lobbying activities and possible conflicts of interest, given their role as directors of several large Canadian and foreign corporations.

The senator is thus speaking on behalf of the Senate, implicating the Senate directly, and several other senators. But she does not stop there. And this bring me to my second point.

In addition to implicating the Senate, the senator also attacks the House of Commons by drawing a series of provocative parallels between the House of Commons and the Senate. For instance, she compares respective costs and functions, leading us to believe that senators are less costly and therefore more efficient than we are as elected MPs. The remarks are made with the same spirit that pushed Senator Nolin to accuse the House of Commons of becoming a circus since we have introduced televised debates. If such provocative remarks are included in a senator's civil suit against an MP, does that not in itself constitute a serious case of contempt of the House of Commons and of its role as the voice of democracy in the country?

Therefore, not only am I forced to tackle the entire Senate alone in order to defend myself, but I must also defend the integrity of the House of Commons alone as well. Do I have a mandate from the House of Commons to speak in its name as the senator seems to have for the Senate?

Again, I will be forced to call a certain number of members, and even certain ministers, to testify in defence of the House. It would even be appropriate to have each political party send a delegate to defend its rights with respect to the matters raised.

As members can see, I am not implicated in a personal attack so much as I am a victim of an attack by the Senate against the House of Commons.

I find myself caught, as it were, between two different institutions, which are sometimes hostile towards one another, having to battle the first and defend the second, simultaneously and on my own, because I have so far received no assistance from the House of Commons, despite the magnitude of this affair, which I feel is completely immoral and unfair. I am in an impossible situation.

This brings me to my third and final point. This civil suit is well beyond my means as a member. When a senator, with the support of the Senate and/or the government in power, as is the case here, brings a suit against a member, the battle is an unequal one. A member of parliament, particularly an opposition member, does not have access to the resources a senator does who is appointed to the Senate for more than 20 years and who can have her legal costs met by a whole set of agreements with the Senate spread out over ten or fifteen years, to which can be added some attractive contracts from the government in power.

Because of the exaggerated nature of this case and its clear attempt to muzzle MPs that dare criticize the Senate openly, my rights to freedom of speech is being jeopardized, and so is the freedom of speech of most other elected members of this House.

Because of the exaggerated nature of this case and its clear attempt to muzzle MPs that dare criticize openly the Senate, my right to freedom of speech is being jeopardized, and so is the freedom of speech of most other elected members of the House. Let me explain.

As soon as this business began, when the senator sent me her formal notice, alleging that my 16-page document contained defamatory material, I contacted the House legal advisers who advised me to send out a mailing to all my constituents in Québec East making several minor corrections, in order to ward off any possibility of a lawsuit and to cool off any other senators. The House legal advisers wrote up the correction notice, and although I feel it is extremely generous in certain points, it was sent out as drafted by the House.

I co-operated fully, and to the letter, with the House legal advisers in order to avoid any lawsuit. The Senator did sue me, however. Moreover, the House legal counsels told me clearly that, if there were a lawsuit, the House would very likely agree to meet the cost of representation by counsel, since I had acted readily and in good faith, particularly when the alleged errors had been committed in the performance of my parliamentary duties, in a householder mailing. In other words, I had every reason to believe that the House of Commons would back me up if there were a court case.

Members can therefore imagine my amazement to learn that the House of Commons is refusing to meet the costs of representing me in this lawsuit. I am all the more surprised since the House of Commons generally meets the legal costs of MPs when the actions for which they are sued were committed in the performance of their duties. This is a justified practice because a member of parliament is a public figure subject to all manner of lawsuits, justified or unjustified. That is, moreover, why this is a common practice for provincial and municipal administrations as well.

In your letter of October 29, you give no reason for the refusal by the Board of Internal Economy. In an earlier letter, however, you had written that the board was “hesitant to intervene in a dispute between parliamentarians of both Houses”. If that explanation still holds, it strikes me as rather discriminatory, and seriously threatens my freedom of speech as a parliamentarian.

First, why would the House of Commons be so hesitant to intervene in a dispute between a member and a senator? Is the House of Commons not the House of the elected representatives? And is the House not obliged to defend elected representatives, before senators, who are not elected?

The Speaker of the House of Commons is first and foremost Speaker of the House of Commons, not of the Senate. Does he not have a moral obligation toward the elected members of the House before those of the non-elected Senate?

Every credible organization in the western world comes to the defence of its own members first before those of any other organization. It is a question of respect in the most primitive sense.

MPs in the House, therefore, cannot be placed on an equal footing with the senators over there. We are the elected members. We speak for taxpayers and must answer to them every four or five years. We carry the flame of democracy. Without us there is no democracy. Without us the voice of the people is silent.

Senators are not elected. They are appointed to age 75 and, accordingly, are not accountable to the public every five years. Their role is not essential to the democratic process. Our democracy does not depend on the senators. Our system could do without them, but not without MPs.

So, how can we equate an elected MP with a non elected senator? This is serious discrimination against me as an MP and where my freedom of speech is compromised, like that of all the other members of this House. Nothing is more serious, as Beauchesne writes in comment 75 in the 6th edition, and I quote:

The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the member of parliament

To compromise members' right to speak is to compromise the very foundation of democracy and its exercise in this House.

Accordingly an excessive, exaggerated lawsuit such as this one is a forceful attempt to muzzle MPs who wish to criticize the Senate.

In refusing to cover the legal costs in my defence, the Board of Internal Economy not only assures the pre-eminence of senators over MPs but gives senators the freedom to sue MPs even for the most ludicrous reasons, knowing full well that henceforth they are vulnerable. I would remind the House that a lawsuit is not necessarily reasonable or justified because it comes from a senator. Their intentions can also be mischievous and malicious.

MPs will then be subject to forms of blackmail by senators who are non-elected and who represent particular or private interests. When governments elsewhere are reducing the advantages granted to those who are non-elected in Canada, non-elected senators are taking precedence over the House of Commons in making elected MPs toe the line. What a travesty of justice. What a travesty of democracy.

Regardless, the board may try to weaken me by refusing to cover my legal costs, contrary to custom. It may protect the interests of the Senate first and permit me to be sued to the limit of my human and financial capabilities. I will, however, never give up my right to speak. So long as I am an elected member of this House, I will continue to speak of the waste and the abuse in the Senate. Not only have I the right to do so, I have the duty. Dead or alive, as the old Panamanian adage says, but never on my knees.

I will never give up my freedom of speech. Never shall I cease to criticize the waste and abuse of the Senate. As long as I am an elected member I will continue to criticize it because it is not only my role but my responsibility toward taxpayers.

Too often elected members are criticized for not respecting the will of the people. Here is the golden opportunity to put into application the views of the vast majority of Canadians and Quebecers who are opposed to the Senate as it exists today and who want it either abolished or reformed.

For all these reasons, I would ask the Chair to exercise all its influence to reverse this decision by the Board of Internal Economy and give me the money I need to cover legal costs in this matter so that my defence and that of the House of Commons, currently under attack, may be properly assumed.

Privilege November 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am personally involved, but not voluntarily, in a serious case of contempt of parliament, a case indeed so serious that it could weaken the democratic spirit of the House in our role as elected members.

This case of contempt involves both the Senate and the House of Commons and can be explained quickly by considering three issues: first, the implication of the Senate; second, the aggression on the House of Commons; and third, the undermining of my right to freedom of speech as an elected member.

Mr. Speaker, I did not delay in raising this point of order, on the contrary. Acting on information received in recent days, along with your letter of October 29, received just hours ago, I am anxious to address the matter today.

Mr. Speaker, as you indicate yourself on page 11,121 of Hansard dated December 9, 1998, “I cannot presume of the content of a question of privilege before having heard it”. For this reason, I feel that you will allow me the time to explain this important question of privilege. I am convinced that once you have heard the facts in this case, you will conclude with me that it is indeed a very serious contempt of parliament, the consequences of which could directly affect the integrity of the House and the freedom of speech of all members. I hope you will take the time to justify your decision.

In Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot, chapter 12, it states on page 229:

—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its function, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer in the discharge of his “parliamentary duty”, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.

I did indeed say “has a tendency to produce such results” and “even though there is no precedent for the offence”. The reason for this is that, of course, contempt cannot be limited. Its definition remains open-ended because no one is in a position to predict all possible cases of contempt of parliament.

According to all references consulted, contempt of parliament is essentially an attack on the authority and dignity of the House of Commons.

What I am presenting today is a case of contempt of parliament or a case with a tendency to produce such a result, one that is new, possibly unique, although I believe there is a precedent, a similar case raised in this House on October 14 by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley—

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise after my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic. I hope to be as eloquent as he was on the subject.

Like my other colleagues in the Bloc, I am somewhat perplexed and concerned by Bill C-6. It concerns me because, as we all know very well—and my colleagues have mentioned this amply today—we already have in Quebec a law governing personal information, a law that has been enacted, works very well and covers the entire field, to the full extent of the law and the powers of the national assembly.

So, the law covers all areas of personal information, and now we have the federal government with another law, Bill C-6, which, in legal terms, is inadequate as it fails to cover all it should. In addition, it causes serious confusion in business and does not even protect individuals.

My colleagues have spoken at length of various aspects of the bill. I would like to focus for a few minutes only on the presentation made by the Quebec Conseil du patronat in March.

It is not a sovereignist organization. It in fact is known to represent primarily big business in Quebec and has traditionally been federalist in its political views.

However, in the case of Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, they came up with a very detailed report to show that this bill was totally unacceptable for Quebec businesses because, once again, it creates confusion.

Bill C-6 does not at all take into account the Quebec act, with the result that Quebec businesses will be subjected to two different legal systems.

In its presentation, the Conseil du patronat says that for information collected, used and transmitted in the province, the personal information protection act that will apply in the private sector will be the Quebec act, while the federal legislation will apply to information transmitted outside the province. This is only one of many factors that will generate confusion among businesses.

The Conseil du patronat provides a few examples. For instance, Quebec companies that come under federal jurisdiction and that do business outside Quebec, or that are governed by a Canadian act, will not know which legislation applies. Indeed, there will be two acts that will put contradictory demands on them and, moreover, that will not adequately protect people.

There is a jurisdictional conflict, with the result that Quebec consumers will not be properly protected, while businesses will have two types of remedy. This is a total contradiction. And these are only two examples provided by the Conseil du patronat du Québec.

Consent is extremely important when we are dealing with personal information. However, the provisions in bill C-6, which is the federal legislation, and in the Quebec act are different.

Under the Quebec legislation, consent must be express, specific and clear. On the other hand, according to the principle set out in section 4, schedule 1 of Bill C-6, consent is required. There is one contradiction.

There are others, for instance the one concerning the collection of information. The Quebec legislation states that the collection of information from a third party cannot be done without the consent of the individual, except in certain very specific exceptional circumstances. Bill C-6 on the other hand states that an organization may collect information without the knowledge and consent of the individual.

How can anyone see his way clear through two pieces of contradictory legislation that are complete opposites in their vision and their application? It is certain that this does not protect the Quebec consumer but, worse still, it places Quebec businesses in an extremely unfortunate position, because they are incapable of knowing whether they should be treating their customers according to federal or provincial legislation. Things will be even more complicated for companies carrying on business with out-of-province companies or those coming under federal legislation.

There are many examples of these. However, I would conclude with a quote from the submission by the Conseil du patronat du Québec:

These are all questions for which we find no answers at this time, and if Bill C-6 is passed as is, they will mean huge problems for businesses.

This is one of the conclusions by a council that, I would remind you, is not a sovereignist organization. It is one that defends the interests of Quebec business people and often comes across as federalist.

There are so many questions raised by Bill C-6. That is, moreover, the reason I am so concerned. If the Conseil du patronat raises so many questions on Bill C-6, one may well wonder, given the potential conflicts and obvious contradictions, whether this bill is just an unplanned accident or a deliberate act by the federal government.

Does the federal government have the deliberate intention of adversely affecting Quebec with Bill C-6, not only in its law-making powers, but also by harming Quebec businesses? Is this a possibility? I ask you. Does the government deliberately wish to harm Quebec?

In the case of Bill C-6, we are justified to ask this question because it is big and obvious and because the contradiction is also obvious. I wonder if, basically, it could be deliberate. There is no lack of recent examples regarding the federal government and its actions against Quebec, whether against the social union or the provincial powers. We have seen it in the health sector; we have also seen it recently in the education sector with the creation of the millennium fund. What an insult for Quebec. The only thing that could be worst could probably be Bill C-6.

The federal government directly addresses the students on the issue of the millennium fund and even they are outraged to see how it shamelessly holds them hostage.

It does not try to harm Quebec in a hypocrite and hidden way. No, it does it in broad daylight. Once again, Bill C-6 is an example.

Bill C-6 is a good example of this attempt which is probably part of plan B, which is to despise everything that maintains the distinct character of Quebec, that is the privacy legislation for example.

In conclusion, as all my colleagues, I wish that the minister will finally wake up and have the good sense to withdraw this bill.

Main Estimates, 1999-2000 June 8th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make before asking my honourable colleague a question.

I recently mailed out in my riding 48,000 copies of a 16-page pamphlet containing a great deal of information on senators, with a breakdown of their income and benefits, and what they do in the Senate. In addition to being extremely well paid and having a multitude of benefits, they serve particular interests. Some even sit on the board of multiple corporations, as well as defending the interests of certain parties.

The reaction in my riding was extremely virulent. Hundreds of people called up to ask “How can Canada allow an institution that is not representative, not elected and not accountable?”

In the pamphlet, I gave two phone numbers, one for the Senate, which I think is still connected, and the other for the PMO. They have been swamped with calls and the PMO line had to be disconnected. The Senate line may well follow suit before long if people keep on calling.

One of the points raised by the leader of the government in the House was that there were a great many constitutional problems relating to the Senate regulations. In this document, since we have the power to set the Senate's budget, I propose that its budget be limited to $1 per senator per year. This will encourage the senators to retire.

I would therefore ask my colleague if he finds that budget formula more acceptable than allocating $30 million to the Senate.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act May 11th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-78, which is essentially, for those who do not know, a bill giving the present government the power to get its hands of $30 billion in surplus funds in the federal employees' pension plans.

We are not talking here of $30 million, but $30 billion. This is a bill that gives the federal government the power to get its hands on that money and to use it as it sees fit. In other words, this gives the government a great deal of power, even allowing it, to a certain extent, to treat those who have contributed to this pension fund most unfairly.

What gives the federal government the power to do this is a grey area of the law. There is apparently nothing in federal law at this time that governs the use of pension fund surpluses, nothing that makes sure they are used in a reasonable manner or in the taxpayers' interest.

This grey area allows the federal government to act in this way, to pass Bill C-78 and to get it hands on the $30 billion or so of federal employee pension fund surplus.

In my opinion, this is a grave injustice because, when it comes down to it, there appears to be absolutely no concern for the interests of those who contributed to this pension fund. Nor does the interest of the public seem necessarily to be served.

Such action is precedent setting. If the federal government helps itself to the surplus in its own employees' pension fund, what is there to prevent any company from helping itself to the surplus in its employees' pension fund, as used to happen? Several examples were given in the House of companies that relied on this argument to dip into the surpluses in their employees' pension funds.

What the federal government is doing with Bill C-78 is unfair. It is setting a poor example for companies and decision makers.

There are several indications that it is acting in bad faith. The President of the Treasury Board has not even bothered to appoint to the board union representatives or employees who have contributed to this pension fund. Rather than opening up the board responsible for managing this pension fund to people who truly represent contributors or to union representatives, the President of the Treasury Board has decided to appoint a group of people. The reason is obvious; these people will defend the interests of the federal government rather than those of actual contributors to the fund.

I am not in the least surprised. What did the federal government do for unemployed workers? Exactly the same thing. Unemployed workers contribute to employment insurance, but the government is making it increasingly difficult for more than about 36% to 39% of them to qualify for benefits. Sixty per cent of workers do not qualify, although they contribute to the employment insurance plan.

This is of course unfair. It is also a misappropriation of funds. The unemployed or the workers who contributed to the employment insurance plan expect the government to use the money to create jobs, particularly since, in the case of employment insurance, the federal government does not contribute one penny to the plan. It is the workers and employers who contribute to that plan. The money belongs to them and it should be managed with their best interests in mind, not those of the federal government.

This government is trying to find oblique ways to get as much money as possible, whether it is fair or not, as in this case. This is unfair, and even immoral and dishonest. The government collects a lot of taxes and has a lot of debts. Taxes have increased considerably since it took office. Since 1993, there have been about 38 increases. The overall tax burden in Canada has gone up about 15%. We are paying something like $30 billion more in taxes than we did in 1993.

Canada is among the countries with the highest tax rates in the G-7, the OECD and the industrialized world. This statement is not from me, but from the OECD, which says that we are one of the most heavily taxed nation in the industrialized world.

Instead of lowering taxes and acting fairly and equitably, the government is using oblique ways to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers, including its own employees. It is grabbing the surplus in that pension fund to use it for its own purposes.

As has been said, this is dishonest. It is a kind of piracy. The Minister of Finance is Captain Morgan, who has decided to break into the treasure chest of his own crew. The Minister of Finance is Captain Hook, pillaging his own crew a second or third time. I am not sure how many times, but this is not the first time that this piracy has taken place. Taking $30 billion in surplus from one's own employees' pension fund is indeed an act of piracy

We in the Bloc Quebecois are proposing some amendments because, basically, there are honest ways of handling a surplus, ways that are not hard to understand. There are many examples, in Quebec and elsewhere, of handling funds in compliance with legislation. The purpose of our amendments is to suggest to the government fair, respectable and honest ways of handling the surplus in the federal employees' pension fund.

There are plenty of examples. The 1985 act suggests all kinds of ways to apply pension benefit standards and ways to see that surpluses are, in some way, returned to those who contributed to them. There is a whole series of measures that could be implemented so as to respect the interests of those who paid into a pension fund.

First of all, the legislation created must not only ensure that the money gets back, one way or the other, to those who contributed it, but also a committee must be struck to represent unionized workers. The President of Treasury Board does not seem to be contemplating this possibility. The government has decided instead to reject outright anyone who could speak for the workers, opting instead for appointing people who will speak for the government. To what end? To get their hands on the surplus in the public servants' pension fund, that $30 billion, and no doubt to use it for other purposes. Once again, this is a roundabout way of taxing people. Unfortunately, this is a most unfair way as well.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999 May 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-71. A number of things were said on this bill and many more could be added to stress the importance of this legislation, which deals with several aspects of the federal government's finances.

I want to emphasize three points. First, I will discuss the issue of the transfer of federal funds to the provinces. Then I will deal briefly with the national child benefit, before concluding with a suggestion to the government to improve public finances.

As for transfers to the provinces, earlier, someone who is rather thick and who sits across the floor accused the Bloc Quebecois of not having any respect for the per capita formula. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois and all the democrats in this House respect that principle, but this is not what is at issue when we are dealing with transfers to the provinces.

The federal government was petty and dishonest in the way it went about changing the formula. That formula was based on a number of factors, including population, but also on other factors that are not strictly related to the population. There were even some clearly defined agreements and announcements. In the 1996 budget, the government clearly stated that, if changes were made to the formula used to calculate transfers to the provinces, 50% would be based on population until 2002-03.

That is not what happened. In fact, the federal government changed the formula used in the calculation of transfer payments without telling Quebec and the other provinces, and the new formula it imposes upon them will come into effect in 2001. Not only was this change not announced, but there was an agreement in place. At least, that agreement was mentioned in the 1991 budget. Moreover, this was done only a few weeks after the signing of the social union agreement, which stated clearly that the federal government would not change the formula without giving the provincial governments at least 12 months notice.

Again, the federal government did not keep its word and changed the formula, which means that Quebec will lose $350 million a year for three or four years. Quebec will lose nearly $1 billion, maybe more, because of a cheap trick by the federal government.

What I find particularly appalling is that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the two most powerful people in this government, are not protecting Quebec's interests, in spite of the fact that they both come from Quebec and that Quebec has the right to demand that the formula be maintained as agreed, in other words that it not be changed until 2002-03. This is a cheap and dishonest move, and the Bloc Quebecois has stirred up a lot of discussion on this issue.

I see this as anti-Quebec behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. And there are more examples of anti-Quebec behaviour. For example, I could speak for some time on the social union, the millennium scholarships, and the way the government is trying to harm Quebec's interests.

On the one hand, these attacks have been more pronounced since 1995 and the referendum. On the other, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister seem to lack the courage and political will to develop fair economic policies.

A case in point is the national child benefit. As we know, the needs are huge in Canada. In spite of the fact that the government had promised it would reduce it, child poverty in Canada is worse now, in 1999, than it was in 1993 when the government came to power.

There are many other examples. The member for Rosemont mentioned housing, from which the federal government withdrew completely. Employment insurance is another one. These are instances of gross social injustice. On the one hand, this government has been multiplying its attacks against Quebec, there are countless examples of this. On the other, it seems to be somewhat indecisive, weak, and lacking in courage when it comes to social and justice issues across the country.

I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister something that might help him be remembered in the future. I read this morning in La Presse that he was bemoaning the fact that very little was made of his accomplishments. The fact of the matter is his government did not accomplish anything. He has done nothing we might remember him by.

If the Prime minister wants to do something that will stick in the memory of Canadians and Quebecers, I suggest he abolish the other place, where people sleep and snore, wasting $60 million of our hard-earned money. If the Prime Minister had the courage to do what has to be done to abolish the other place, he could recover the $60 million wasted on 104 senators, who do very little work, and use this money to meet the needs of the poor, the children and the unemployed, as well as for housing.

To illustrate how the $60 million could be better spent on other projects than for those 104 friends of the government, this amount could be used to create some 20,000 summer jobs for young people.

If, as he says, the Prime Minister is really concerned by the future of young Canadians, he should take his political responsibilities and abolish the other place, take the money and spend it on summer jobs for youth. If 20,000 jobs could be created in one year, this means that over a period of ten years 200,000 jobs could be created for young people by using the money which is presently being wasted on the other place to maintain 104 friends of the government.

There are ways of doing this. Indeed, I sent a document in my riding of Quebec East, in which I proposed a way to empty the other place.

The solution would be to reduce the other place's budget, which now stands at $50 million, to $104, that is $1 per senator per year. There is not one single senator in the world who would accept such a budget. This would encourage senators to retire and to enjoy a comfortable pension.

If the Prime Minister introduced in next year's budget for the Senate a provision allocating $104 for the next fiscal year, I am convinced that a majority of members of the House would vote for it. We have the authority to do so, because we have political legitimacy and we represent voters. This budget could not be rejected by the Senate.

Senators do not represent anybody. They represent nothing but political parties, special interests, or the Prime Minister's interests. This would be a way to emptying with the Senate without abolishing it. This kind of budget would encourage senators to retire. Those who wanted to stay on with a salary of $1 a year could do it on a voluntary basis, or for the love of their country, but not to collect a big pay cheque and numerous costly benefits for very little work.

Today, in 1999, we have no need—and it is even scandalous to keep it—for the other place, we do not dare and are not allowed to name in this House. In my view, it is an abomination that a proud democratic country should tolerate such an institution.

This proposal is on the table, and concrete and realistic means have also been suggested. Now, it is only a matter of political will, a political will the government could muster to meet the needs of all Canadians. If the Prime Minister wants to leave an achievement of lasting memory, let him take up this challenge. Let him reduce the budget of the other place and use the savings to create jobs for young people. With 20,000 jobs a year, we could get 200,000 over a period of 10 years.

Supply May 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his most interesting speech on shipbuilding in Canada, and in Quebec in particular.

I have always believed that, since it boasts one of the world's finest rivers, Canada could have a shipbuilding industry. It is a leading edge industry. Maritime engineers have told me that we in Canada possess certain advantages for the development of a shipbuilding industry.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he has projected figures for job creation and wealth that would be generated by the development of a shipbuilding industry.

Supply April 27th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciated the comments by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

I remind him that in 1755 the Brits deported the Acadians. In those days, the situation was non negotiable. The Brits had total control over the situation, so much so that those who would have offered to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the conflict would never have been heard. The Brits succeeded in their endeavour because they had the power and determination to do so.

The way the situation is evolving in Kosovo is a bit like that. We might talk about and wish for a negotiated settlement to the conflict, but is it feasible? As my colleague said earlier, Milosevic is a barbarian. He has terrorized Kosovo. He has violated the rights of a whole population. We know he has exterminated, killed thousands of people. We may get more accurate figures once the conflict is over.

It seems rather obvious that while we want a negotiated settlement to this conflict, we must realize that Milosevic has no intention of negotiating.

His goal is to rid Kosovo of its population to seize one half, one quarter or a third of the territory. Of course, he would like to have all of it. In the end, there is only one solution, and that is to keep up the pressure against this barbarian, to force him back to the negotiating table. Wishful thinking will settle nothing.

Does the member not believe this situation is very similar to or worse than what the Acadians went through in 1755?